G.R. No. 165776 - GENEVIEVE O. GAAS AND ADELINA P. GOMERA, VS. RASOL L. MITMUG, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION XII, COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondents Genevieve O. [G]aas, Adelina P. Gomera and Nelson L. Gonzales are hereby found GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty. Pursuant to the provision of Sec. 23 (c), Rule XIV, Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 91-1631 dated December 27, 1991, Rules Implementing Book V, of the Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, they are dismissed from the service, without prejudice to their right to appeal as provided under Sec. 27, R.A. [No.] 6770. The Municipal Mayor shall implement this decision within ten (10) days from the date that it shall have become final and executory. The complaint against Mayor Warlino M. Relova is hereby dismissed, without prejudice to the result of the investigation of the criminal aspect of these same acts. SO DECREED. [7] Petitioners filed respective motions for reconsideration which were denied. Thereafter, they filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads: WHEREFORE , the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED . The assailed Decision dated October 23, 1997 and Order dated February 24, 1998, of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao in Case No. OMB-MIN-ADM-94-042 are hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . [8] The Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, ruled that the evidence presented was substantial, sufficient to cause the dismissal of petitioners: . . . The comprehensive audit report submitted by public respondent Commission on Audit, Region [XII], Cotabato City, reported that the shortages of cash by the petitioners was due to the disallowed cash advances ( vales or chits) made by the municipal employees; that such cash advances were made through the petitioners per instructions of Saturnino Burgos, the Assistant Municipal Treasurer-OIC, who at that time appointed the petitioners as special disbursing officers; that appointing the petitioners as special disbursing officers was strictly prohibited since such [positions were] incompatible to the petitioners' positions as municipal bookkeeper and unbonded senior clerk. The petitioners themselves admitted such findings but raised as a defense the alleged scheme by Burgos under the guise of designating them as special disbursement officers and made them to perform tasks incompatible to their positions. It is true that their immediate superior, Burgos, in his capacity as Assistant Municipal Treasurer-OIC, was unauthorized to appoint them as special disbursing officers, hence, tasked to handle public funds. However, by accepting such additional and incompatible task, the petitioners likewise accepted the duty to be accountable [for] the public funds and to make sure that the disbursement thereof are properly documented according to the rules and regulations. The petitioners should have kept in mind the constitutional mandates that a public office is a pub